On the second day of the new Congress, members of the US House of Representatives read the Constitution aloud on the House Floor. Members take turns reading Amendments I – X from the Bill of Rights.
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Congress Reads the US Constitution, Bill of Rights (Part 4)
Freedom and Equality in Dignity and Rights for All Persons
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”(Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Born Free: Yes or No?
Are all human beings born free? No, definitely not. The status of freedom for human being begins even before physical birth. The right to be born nowadays is in certain countries is decided by the state (politicians). They call it population control and family planning. The biological parents decide the fate of the foetus until it gets its first breadth outside the womb of the mother, called birth. Until then, the biological mother has a medical time limit whereby she can abort safely with or without legal consensus. The foetus has no say. So human beings do not even have freedom in the question of whether they should be born. When they are actually born into this world, are they born free? Again, the answer is no. The moment a human being is born, he/she is labelled according to the requirements of the state, parents, status quo, family, culture and religion. All human beings, especially the ones with dictatorial political powers, have yet to understand the meaning and spirit of the principle, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Equality: Begins With Persons – Centred World:
To understand article 1, we should take an honest and critical look at the world today. What kind of world are we living in? Among the many negative aspects that go against human freedom, the first is, it is a man-centred (androcentric) world. The human universe and all its activities still rotate around the male gender. Take these common examples. Women after marriage are still expected in many countries to take the family name of their spouse? Why can’t the women have same expectation of the men? Will the society support such a move? Or, why can’t the women keep the birth names after marriage? What about names for children? Many countries (especially in the east) still require and practice the giving of the father’s surname to their children. Again, why give the father’s surname only? Why not give the mother’s surname? We might think that the requirements and practices of married names and surnames are harmless. An entire book can be written on the legal and social implications of the requirements and practices of married names and surnames. These one-sided practices have a lot of problems especially for the women (female).
An androcentric world emphasis the male in everything: law, ethics, morality, culture, politics and religion. This emphasis negates the equality between men and women. Article one stresses that, “All human beings are born free and equal…” Equality of men and women can only be a reality, if they are treated as persons of equal status, in law, ethics, morality, culture, politics and religion. As long as this doesn’t happen universally (east and west), women (female) are neither born free nor equal in law, ethics, morality, culture, politics and religion. The world as we know it today should become person-centred (Woman = Man = Person).
In this context, politics and politicians are key determinants in the development of a persons-centred nation. Politicians are great at giving promises especially before an election. But what persons in any country should look out for, are politicians who will use their political powers and influences to push for development of persons-centred nations. If any politician can assist in transforming his country into a persons-centred one, he deserves the noble peace price in gold. What is the purpose of supporting politicians who promise political scraps (e.g. building of better highways), when vital human rights’ needs like freedom and equality of persons are still not fulfilled. Do you still want to continue to drive on political highways of inequality?
Freedom and Equality: Observed In Dignity and Rights
Freedom and equality of all persons must be observed in dignity and rights? What does this mean?
All persons should be accorded an equal respectful treatment which is their birthrights as humans. We all understand the meaning of V.I.P treatment. V.I.P stands for very important persons. Who are they? They are the persons who are always given preferential and special treatment in everything and everywhere. Now, if certain persons are given preferential and special treatments, then, it indicates that others are not given that same treatment. So, how are all persons to be accorded an equal respectful treatment, when there is always a practice of preferential and special treatments? And what does the practice of preferential and special treatments mean?
I believed most of us have watched the science fiction adventure movie 2012. In one of the scenes, you will see the V.I.P(s) being given preferential and special treatment in saving their lives first. It also showed how the V.I.P(s) had the power to decide over the fate of others. Why? The Cheque book decided who lived and who died. Though, 2012 is just a science fictional movie, it portrayed what preferential and special treatments can do in real life. It can decide between the life for one person or a group of persons and the sufferings and death of millions. Preferential and special treatments do not respect human rights of all persons. It only focuses on the rights of certain persons.
Conclusion:
Ask yourself, are preferential and special treatments compatible with the principal that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Freedom and equality in dignity and rights for all persons is still very much an ideal that needs a lot of effort to be realized realistically.
The main obstacles to its realization are human beings themselves. As long as there are human beings who consider themselves superior over others and would like to have preferential and special treatments, the principle of freedom and equality in dignity and rights for all persons will be resisted at all levels of a nation.
The practice of preferential and special treatments promotes the practice authoritarian oligarchy. And in authoritarian oligarchy, there is no place for human freedom, equality, dignity and rights. So, it is in the interest of all persons everywhere to strive for their freedom, equality, dignity and rights which is their birthright as human beings.
Qualifications: Th. Dip (MTBI, 1978); Th.B. (MBTS, 1982); MSCP (AU, summa cum laude, 2010)
Professional Status: Blogger of Rajatwit; Popular Articles Author; Counseling Psychologist; Study Skills Trainer; Contents Development Trainer, Organizational In-House Personnel Trainer
Email Contact Info: Rajatwit@yahoo.ca
Author’s Blog: http://rajatwit.blogspot.com/
Author in EzineMark: http://ezinemark.com/u/thesigan-nadarajan/30009605/
Author in Articlebase: http://www.articlesbase.com/authors/thesigan-nadarajan/128499/newest
MYR Mobile No: +66875031253;
Thai Mobile No: +66875031253
Available for: Consultation and Training
Article from articlesbase.com
Dons (Art Singer) – participant of Latvian Eurovision Song Contest 2010 with song my religion is freedom Authors: Zigmars Liepins, Janis Liepins, Nikita Kellermans Lyrics: Rising – Our spirits are rising, Our faith is surprising, Dont need a gun to win this fight! Glory – We have gathered for glory, Brand new page in our story, Will be opening tonight! My religion is freedom! Freedom! My religion is freedom! Daylight- We look mighty in daylight, Peoples hope for a new start, Will resound in every heart! Mana reliģija ir brīvība! Min religion är friheten! Dinim özgürlüktür! Moja reļigija svoboda! La religion est pour moi la liberté! Meine Religion ist Freicheit! Mi religión es la libertad! A vallāsam szadabsāg! Vapaus on uskontomme! Nere erlijioa askatasuna da! Is í an tsaoirse mo chreideamh! Mano religija laisve! Minu usk on vabadus! My religion is freedom! Freedom! My religion is freedom!
Video Rating: 4 / 5
Q&A: Which do you feel is more important – national security against terrorism or protecting Constitutional rights?
Question by C.Diva: Which do you feel is more important – national security against terrorism or protecting Constitutional rights?
Which is more important to you (in your own poinion) – national security against terrorism or protecting Constitutional rights? Why?
Best answer:
Answer by Warren S
National security. With it you have some rights. Without it you can lose the biggest right that you have and that is your life itself.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Ways that the Constitution helps protect our rights?
Question by : Ways that the Constitution helps protect our rights?
Best answer:
Answer by Scott Evil
Well, the Constitution doesn’t actually protect anything, as it’s just a piece of paper. It is up to the American government to see to it that they’re actually enforced. If people choose to ignore it, then the Constitution is meaningless. A popular amendment in the Bill of Rights is the 4th one. That says that if the police ever search your things illegally, then nothing they find can be used against you.
What do you think? Answer below!
What individual rights are present in Articles II-VII of the Constitution?
Question by solarenergy43: What individual rights are present in Articles II-VII of the Constitution?
Best answer:
Answer by Michael C
Individual rights are in the amendments, not the articles.
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Church of Scientology Decision Protecting Religious Freedom in European Court of Human Rights
Los Angeles, Ca (PRWEB) October 1, 2009
Today, the European Court of Human Rights ruled unanimously in favor of two Scientology religious groups in Russia (European Court of Human Rights: Case # 7683601 and 32782/03), finding that they have the right to be registered as religious organizations under Russian law. This decision determines that members of the Church of Scientology of Surgut and the Church of Scientology of Nizhnekamsk have the right to religious freedom and freedom of association pursuant to Articles 9 and 11 of the European Human Rights Convention.
The Church’s human rights counsel, Bill Walsh, stated: “The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights today is a great victory for religious freedom in Russia and in all 47 member countries of the Council of Europe. The case is given the highest rating of importance by the Court itself as it effectively kills the repressive 15 Year Rule, denying religious organizations rights until they have existed in the country for 15 years. Moreover, the ruling will have great impact on countries throughout the European Community that have passed similar restrictions to repress religious freedom. So it is not only a victory for religious freedom in Russia, but for religious freedom everywhere in the Council of Europe.”
In 1997, the Russian government passed laws preventing religious organizations from forming legally unless they could prove they had been in existence in their respective state(s) for 15 years. Such a law obviously discriminates against religions not established in a state for 15 years and has now been ruled as unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights.
In reaching this decision, the Court “established that the applicants were unable to obtain recognition and effective enjoyment of their rights to freedom of religion and association in any organizational form. The first applicant could not obtain registration of the Scientology group as a non-religious legal entity because it was considered to be a religious community by the Russian authorities. The applications for registration as a religious organization submitted by the first and second applicants as founders of their respective groups… were denied by reference to the insufficient period of the groups’ existence. Finally, the restricted status of a religious group for which they qualified… conveyed no practical or effective benefits to them as such a group was deprived of legal personality, property rights and the legal capacity to protect the interests of its members and was also severely hampered in the fundamental aspects of its religious functions. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been an interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 9 interpreted in the light of Article 11.”
Along with the recent decision of the Court in favor of the right of the Moscow Church of Scientology to be registered as a religious organization under the Religion law, these cases represent precedent-setting rulings that guarantee the freedom of religion and right of association for Scientologists and people of all faiths throughout the 47 nations that comprise the Council of Europe.
The Court concluded that “In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the interference with the applicants’ rights to freedom of religion and association cannot be said to have been ‘necessary in a democratic society.’ There has therefore been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11.”
The Scientology religion was founded by L. Ron Hubbard. The first church was established in the United States in 1954. It has grown to more than 8,000 churches, missions and groups and millions of members in 165 nations. The Russian Federation has more than 70 Scientology Churches and missions from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok.
For more information about Scientology, see www.scientology-moscow.ru, www.scientology.org.
###
Find More Freedom Of Religion Press Releases
Which is more important national security against terrorism or protecting the rights granted to us?
Question by ImmoralAmbulance: Which is more important national security against terrorism or protecting the rights granted to us?
Which is more important—national security against terrorism or protecting the rights granted to us in the Constitution?
Best answer:
Answer by oracleofohio
Protecting our freedoms, hands down.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Good Citizen: The Rights and Duties of an American
Image taken on 2009-09-15 07:33:08 by The Shifted Librarian.
Men’s rights activists – A noble pursuit? (men responses only please)?
First – I find it strange that a discussion forum such as this highlights Gender issues ( pertaining to the sexes) while also highlighting Women’s issues (pertaining to the female)?!, I won’t bore you with my views on this obvious gaffe, but wanted to highlight it as a point of amusement.
My post is about the philosophy of equality and in particular the effect Second-wave feminism has had. I’ve perused some of the threads here and have noticed that several men have started to vocalize their concern regarding the lack of attention being brought to the issue of men’s rights. We know Feminists by design are interested in their own rights and freedoms, the logical extrapolation from this is that they aren’t nearly as concerned with your rights as men, which by default promotes confrontation and contention amongst the sexes.
Is society big enough for both gender equality groups? Is this a kin to Right to Life vs. Free choice as far as conention and confrontation?
I apologize that the question might not be that clear, I ran out of room and didn’t have time to properly hash it together.
Amendment on voting rights advocated
Amendment on voting rights advocated
Proponents of amending the Kansas Constitution to protect the voting rights of the mentally ill are holding events Friday in Topeka. The Kansas Mental Health Coalition scheduled a morning news conference to discuss the measure on the Nov. 2 statewide ballot. The group also planned an evening rally at a Topeka hotel. read more
Read more on The Topeka Capital-Journal
